Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

+1 to "keeping the list as it is"

--
Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
www.juansequeda.com


On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:37 PM Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
wrote:

> +1
> Enrico
>
> On 15 Oct 2018, at 17:36, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
> Martin
>
> ---------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> www:  http://www.heppnetz.de/
> email: mhepp@computer.org
>
>
> Am 15.10.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>:
>
> +1 to keep the list up "as is"
>
> Axel
> --
> Dr. Axel Polleres
> url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres
>
> On 15.10.2018, at 17:20, John Leonard <john.leonard@incisivemedia.com>
> wrote:
>
> I prefer Linked Data as a term (I've never met anyone who understands what
> the Semantic Web is outside of people who are actually creating it whereas
> Linked Data is self-explanatory, at least in terms of getting over the
> first hurdle), but does Linked Data have close enough to the same meaning
> to satisfy everyone?
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> *Sent:* 15 October 2018 16:09
> *To:* xueyuan; semantic-web@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed
>
> On 10/15/2018 10:49 AM, xueyuan wrote:
>  > This message is to inform you that the Semantic Web Interest Group
>  > is now closed, [ . . . . ]
>  > With the introduction of Community Groups we now encourage the
>  > participants in the IG forum to
>  > establish Community Groups to continue the conversations.
>
> Given that the semantic-web@w3.org email list has served the community
> very well, I think it would be helpful for continuity if a Community
> Group could take over the existing email list.  Is this possible?  And
> if so, does this mean that we should now create such a community group?
>
> My one hesitation in continuing with the existing list is that the
> choice of the name "Semantic Web" has long been recognized as a
> marketing mistake, so perhaps it is time to say goodbye to it.  "Linked
> Data" is a substantially better term.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> David Booth
>
>
>
>